An op-ed piece in the New York Times discusses an issue that has become fond to me, the issue of evolution and intelligent design. This piece discusses President Bush’s proposal to teach intelligent design in schools. Up until this point the only thing being taught in public schools was the theory of evolution. The article quotes President Bush saying, “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought” (Dennett). Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee reiterated the point saying that teaching intelligent design as well as evolution, “doesn’t force any particular theory on anyone”, he also said, “I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future” (Dennett). Dennett, the author of this op-ed piece feels that everyone is putting stock in this hoax in the form of intelligent design. He claims that people are putting as much faith in this theory as they would quantum physics or Einsteinian relativity, but they are being mislead. Dennett says that physicists are lucky because not many people grasp the basic concepts of quantum physics or Einsteinian relativity enough to dispute the findings that are considered fact. However with evolution and creationism, the facts supporting either one of them are not strong enough and are much more basic, so people are constantly questioning them and working to see if something else out there is better hence the development of intelligent design.
In chapter 4 of Latour, he discusses how theories or studies get their start. As an example he uses Charles Lyell and the development of the study of geology. Latour goes on to explain how Lyell didn’t just decide he wanted to study geology; it was a process of trial and error before he even got to the point where people would take him seriously. Yet with another example Latour points out that if no one is interested, the less there is that can be learned (Latour, p.152). He also says that if there is only one person specializing in a new topic or issue that it isn’t worthwhile and no one will take the findings seriously. New work requires others who are equally specialized to question your work, “Others who are as specialized as you, are trying out your material so fiercely that they may push the proof race to a point where all your resources are barely enough to win the encounter” (Latour, p.152). When preliminary groundwork is not laid scientists risk their work not being taking seriously, therefore completely defeating the purpose of doing the work in the first place.
So back to the issue of intelligent design, what has made it an issue worth being considered by the President of the United States as important enough to be taught in public schools? In essence intelligent design is a combination of both evolution or the natural processes of human development yet also believes that it is the Abrahamic God who is the creator. I feel that it has been a prominent issue of discussion because people are trying to make sense of interconnecting science and religion. Because of the world we live in today we are already picking and choosing bits and pieces from science and religion as to what we believe. Even those who consider themselves devoutly religious are making some concessions to their beliefs because of the lives they live, technology itself is science. Back to the question as to whether intelligent design is appropriate or necessary to teach in school, I would say that it may not be necessary but it isn’t doing harm. Like President Bush said it is part of the educational experience to be presented with different schools of thought so that children are taught to make their own decisions and have the chance to do so instead of schools forcing only one idea on students.
Bibliography-
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?ex=1282881600&en=f3357abadb9ed96e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
No comments:
Post a Comment